wages garnished, so you will then provide them with food? a place to live? clothes? electricity? Where will they live? Are you comfortable with people setting up shacks and shanty towns? Where you will significantly more for police and fire protection. Where people will steal/kill/destroy for their next meal? You see, personal responsibility sounds great until you look at what it would really take. Like I said in a previous post, people don't go without because they want to or because they're too lazy, they do it largely because they have no other choice. Someone working at Wal-Mart is doing their best, but those wages aren't enough to pay to fix a broken leg or arm, or to provide medicine to treat cancer.

Your system would have people die in the streets. It's a fact. It's reality. Jesus said, "The poor, they will be with you always."

You don't understand the civil process, and that of wage garnishment.

Regardless though, with freedom comes responsibility. Personally, I'm going to obtain at least a catastrophic care policy to cover anything that might otherwise exceed my ability to pay. But I would never be so arrogant to force my choices upon someone else. That's not what this Country is all about.....

And by the way, Walmart offers outstanding healthcare coverage. A great example of a Company to choose to work for if healthcare coverage is a priority for someone....

BTW, which current system is the most efficient and cost-effective healthcare payment delivery system that we have today in this country? And be "honest".

I'm always honest......

The only "system" that I believe in is the one that says that an individual has the freedom to choose that which he believes is best for him and his family. Along with that freedom comes the personal responsibility for the decisions he makes.

If he's like me, he's going to opt for some kind of insurance that he feels best meets the individual needs of his family. He'll either buy it himself, or choose to work for an employer that offers it as a benefit. Some people will choose to self-insure. I think that's a silly choice, but it's not my place, nor that of the government, to try to protect someone from what you or I might consider to be a bad decision. With that decision comes responsibility for the consequences of that decision though. Those consequences could range from benefitting financially from not having to pay insurance premiums if the person remains generally healthy, to devastating if they fall seriously ill.

The obvious exception is that as a society, I believe we have a responsibility to take care of those who are genuinely unable to take care of themselves because they are physically unable to work and support themselves.

Well, i asked a specific question.about which current system is the most efficient. You keep talking about personal responsibility (which means you should love Obamacare, as that is what the mandate is all about) and choice, which are notions that have nothing to do with the question.

Anyway, the most efficient and cost effective healthcare system in this country is the Veteran's Administration. And the second most efficient and cost effective is Medicare. Darn government intrusion!

And BTW, if you make bad choices in cases like healthcare, it doesn't just effect you. I don't want the consequences of your bad decisions. If a person chooses to not cover, he will still get care if he ends up in an emergency room and that is the least efficient form of healthcare imaginable (although it is Romney's suggestion for people with no healthcare).

Well, i asked a specific question.about which current system is the most efficient. You keep talking about personal responsibility (which means you should love Obamacare, as that is what the mandate is all about) and choice, which are notions that have nothing to do with the question.
Anyway, the most efficient and cost effective healthcare system in this country is the Veteran's Administration. And the second most efficient and cost effective is Medicare. Darn government intrusion!

And BTW, if you make bad choices in cases like healthcare, it doesn't just effect you. I don't want the consequences of your bad decisions. If a person chooses to not cover, he will still get care if he ends up in an emergency room and that is the least efficient form of healthcare imaginable (although it is Romney's suggestion for people with no healthcare).

The mandate has NOTHING to do with freedom. The personal responsibility is the consequence that must be accepted in exchange for freedom. By definition, the individual mandate is the antithesis of individual freedom.

As to efficiency....I don't know, nor do I care. The most efficient solution to any given problem is not always the best solution.

The personal mandate allows people to buy insurance. If you look at the reasons why people don't buy health insurance, personal responsibility is low on the list. If your making 20k/year, you are not going to be able to spend 8k on health insurance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

The mandate has NOTHING to do with freedom. The personal responsibility is the consequence that must be accepted in exchange for freedom. By definition, the individual mandate is the antithesis of individual freedom.
As to efficiency....I don't know, nor do I care. The most efficient solution to any given problem is not always the best solution.

The personal mandate allows people to buy insurance. If you look at the reasons why people don't buy health insurance, personal responsibility is low on the list. If your making 20k/year, you are not going to be able to spend 8k on health insurance.

No. The individual mandate REQUIRES that people have insurance. There's a big difference.

But beyond that, just about anyone can choose to work for an employer that offers health insurance, even if they earn minimum wage, if that is a priority to them.

But you're COMPLETELY missing the point. I support individual freedom of choice. Along with that freedom comes a requirement that the individual accept responsibility for WHATEVER choice they make. If they choose to self-insure, they should be free to do so, but they accept whatever consequences come from that decision.

The mandate has NOTHING to do with freedom. The personal responsibility is the consequence that must be accepted in exchange for freedom. By definition, the individual mandate is the antithesis of individual freedom.
As to efficiency....I don't know, nor do I care. The most efficient solution to any given problem is not always the best solution.

Dude, the mandate is about personal responsibility so that people who have the means to have insurance are required to do so. No deadbeats. Are you suggesting that a person should have the freedom to not buy in if he has the means to do so?

Dude, the mandate is about personal responsibility so that people who have the means to have insurance are required to do so. No deadbeats. Are you suggesting that a person should have the freedom to not buy in if he has the means to do so?

Yes. Do you really not understand the concept of individual freedom coupled with responsibility for your choices while exercising that freedom?

Good grief..... I know you don't BELIEVE in it, but I gave you credit for at least understanding it.

Yes. Do you really not understand the concept of individual freedom coupled with responsibility for your choices while exercising that freedom?
Good grief..... I know you don't BELIEVE in it, but I gave you credit for at least understanding it.

Oh, I understand you. You think it's OK for people to be deadbeats and game the system. I'm glad that you have nothing to do with government in this country. Deadbeats cost everybody, including you. It's for your protection.

Oh, I understand you. You think it's OK for people to be deadbeats and game the system. I'm glad that you have nothing to do with government in this country. Deadbeats cost everybody, including you. It's for your protection.

Let's hope our elected representatives govern based on facts and principles, not myth, and with a goal of moving forward for the good of the Country.

I think our divisions would grow less if we truly attempted to understand and empathize with different viewpoints - to discuss facts, not talking points. Of course, it's tough to discuss issues via a discussion board. But I think TST members have done remarkably well.

It may not be socialism, but it's darned close to communism. Everyone works for the common good, and only takes what he needs. However, once you step outside of a 70's hippie commune, it fails miserably. It didn't really even work for them and they were willing to live by that philosophy. You always end up with the hangers-on who won't pull their weight, who want to get along on the labor of the majority.

That is the problem with welfare, you get the same situation. Too many floating by, living off the efforts of the majority for no reason than pure laziness. It isn't the idea of helping those who are unable to help themselves that is wrong, it's the reality that too many of those receiving benefits are not unable, but unwilling to do anything to help themselves. Taking more from the wealthy to sweeten the pot will just make it that much more appetizing to those who make a lifestyle of living off the system.

Have you looked at other parts of the world? We've had a version of medicare for 40 years in Aust. NO-One thinks it's communism......it is the most popularly supported government policy ever. The conservatives in the US seem to have done a mother of a job on the citizens in making them believe that a government insurance policy will somehow turn the US into 1940's Russia. Looking from afar it seems weird. Somehow someones"freedom" is at threat because the govt. has an insurance scheme. HUH? Somehow someones strange idea of freedom means that some poor bastard can't get good healthcare or goes bankrupt in the process. Freedom must mean a different thing in the US.